124 replies to this topic

[Y E O N N E]

Snowbluff, on 17 February 2017 - 08:05 AM, said:

This is the norm of American aircraft.

Want an an engine? You're getting a Pratt and Whitney F100 derivative, or something from GE.
Radar? I think it's basically Northrup Grumman.
Targeting Pods is either Northrup or Lockheed.

That's how it is with most complex systems. Ships, tanks, aircraft, you name it. Even your car, to a more limited extent. For big procurement, there is one company that designs the overall system and there is one that performs the role of systems integrator and they are not always one and the same and the latter may even change at a later date.

Quote

Currently, we are in the conceptual stage for the next aircraft. The groundwork of 6th gen tech isn't there, but I think the F-X is going to be a twin engine fighter at the very least.

I imagine the requirements for the 6th gen fighter are going to be extremely dependent on how far lasers come in the next 10 years. The maneuverability aspect is only important so long as weapons require time to reach the target. Lasers are pragmatically instantaneous, so they are limited only by your ability to track the target. We are very good at tracking large objects like aircraft, so the next "fighter" may be little more than a stealthy gun-bag for zapping targets out of the air.

[Snowbluff]

Yeonne Greene, on 17 February 2017 - 09:04 PM, said:

That's how it is with most complex systems. Ships, tanks, aircraft, you name it. Even your car, to a more limited extent. For big procurement, there is one company that designs the overall system and there is one that performs the role of systems integrator and they are not always one and the same and the latter may even change at a later date.

Yep.

Quote

I imagine the requirements for the 6th gen fighter are going to be extremely dependent on how far lasers come in the next 10 years. The maneuverability aspect is only important so long as weapons require time to reach the target. Lasers are pragmatically instantaneous, so they are limited only by your ability to track the target. We are very good at tracking large objects like aircraft, so the next "fighter" may be little more than a stealthy gun-bag for zapping targets out of the air.

Range is the biggest issue. In atmosphere, the beams are attenuated by gases and water vapor. I don't think a chemical laser like the YAL would work with a fighter either. You'd need something lighter (free electron laser?), and a more energetic power supply (LM says they are working on CFE), cooling to go with that power supply (a lot of which is already dedicated to modern avionics and the accompanying/requisite computing power)...

So how about some adaptive cycle engines? Those sound pretty good for range.

Edited by Snowbluff, 17 February 2017 - 11:03 PM.

[Jubblator]

Metus regem, on 14 February 2017 - 11:17 AM, said:

Mechs are bad weapons platforms, they would have more disadvantages than tanks do...

Don't know what I mean, look at the ground pressure from their motive systems, a tank will spread it's weight across both tracks the entire length of the tracks that are in contact with the ground, resulting in a lower PSI (Pounds per Square Inch) than a human...

Mechs will lack agility in an urban environment, just like tanks do. Cities are death traps for tanks, thanks to the prevalence of ATW (Anti-Tank Weapons) in infantry units... This also extends to forests and swamps....

Mechs will have thinner armour than a tank, this is due in large part thanks to the need of joints, you cannot armour up a joint and expect it to be useful.

About the only terrain where a mech would have an advantage is a mountain, but even then, CAS (Close Air Support) would be more valuable than a Mech.

This made so much sense, but made me so sad =( I was hoping for future mech units that i could donate my real body to.

[Y E O N N E]

Snowbluff, on 17 February 2017 - 11:02 PM, said:

Range is the biggest issue. In atmosphere, the beams are attenuated by gases and water vapor. I don't think a chemical laser like the YAL would work with a fighter either. You'd need something lighter (free electron laser?), and a more energetic power supply (LM says they are working on CFE), cooling to go with that power supply (a lot of which is already dedicated to modern avionics and the accompanying/requisite computing power)...

So how about some adaptive cycle engines? Those sound pretty good for range.

We've already moved beyond chemical lasers like the YAL. We're currently at fiber lasers with rapid advancements taking place in diode lasers. What I was driving at, though, is that even a 747 with a sufficiently powerful laser would swat fighters out of the sky, making that 747 the 6th-gen fighter...after a fashion. Range is indeed an issue, however, at any range, the laser wins given sufficient tracking. Should you choose to sacrifice range for more potent wavelengths, but have extremely good tracking, you might simply shoot down the long-range missiles tossed at you. That would compel the enemy to get closer. So long as you have lasers with longer effective range than his lasers, you win.

I wouldn't trust the LM statement on fusion (assuming that's what CFE was referring to) as far as I can throw it. They tossed that blurb out there years ago, and said it would be viable within "five to ten years," IIRC. We haven't heard diddly. All it was, was a ploy to try and get some investment money; they ain't got squat.

[rollermint]

Quote

Mechs are bad weapons platforms, they would have more disadvantages than tanks do...

Don't know what I mean, look at the ground pressure from their motive systems, a tank will spread it's weight across both tracks the entire length of the tracks that are in contact with the ground, resulting in a lower PSI (Pounds per Square Inch) than a human...

Mechs will lack agility in an urban environment, just like tanks do. Cities are death traps for tanks, thanks to the prevalence of ATW (Anti-Tank Weapons) in infantry units... This also extends to forests and swamps....

Mechs will have thinner armour than a tank, this is due in large part thanks to the need of joints, you cannot armour up a joint and expect it to be useful.

Jubblator, on 18 February 2017 - 12:25 AM, said:

This made so much sense, but made me so sad =( I was hoping for future mech units that i could donate my real body to.

Not exactly...Battletech mechs the size of buildings? Yes it doesnt make sense. But the mechs as iterated in Titanfall(should be a little smaller tho), or Heavy Gear/Hawken etc etc that are of a much more reasonable size? Definitely has a place.

A mech that has the agility, versatility and flexibility of a human being will excel and in fact, supercede any other vehicle combat platform in an urban environment, guaranteed. Armour wise, yes if you only consider the conventional armor being used now. But tech is continuously advancing and its easy to imagine that future armour could be lighter, thinner yet stronger than current armors. Its happening right now, people are working on LIQUID body armor, can you believe it...
Less than a decade ago, the general consensus in military circles was that main battle tanks will be extinct and replaced by lighter and more mobile platforms like the Stryker and its ilk. Except that obviously didnt happen and in fact, there is a race now for more advanced main battle tank designs, militaries all over continue to need and buy tanks, in increasing numbers.

Edited by rollermint, 20 February 2017 - 09:28 PM.